Will the D'Alembert produce a win on a 50/50 game of chance?
If I'm not mistaken, the D'Alembert would produce a win of approx. $450,000. Starting at $1, if those numbers are accurate. :)
For those that don't know. The D'Alembert is where you add 1 unit after a loss, and subtract 1 unit after a win. 1-2-3-4-3-2-1 etc.
for the whole sequence? Thats a long term outcome,
in the short term the variance would kill you with real
bets in a real casino.
Quote: EvenBobWhats the strategy, to bet either heads or tails
for the whole sequence? Thats a long term outcome,
in the short term the variance would kill you with real
bets in a real casino.
Yes, you just bet the same side for the whole sequence. Or, you could switch sides when you reach 1 again. 1-2-3-4-3-2-1 switch. They also showed shorter terms in the post. I think, 10,000 trials was like +/- 88. You would win approx. $1000 at -88.
I'm glad you asked the question, I'm kinda interested in what kind of bankroll you would need.
-Start at a 1 unit bet
-Randomly pick 0 or 1.
-A 1 is a win and 0 is a loss.
-If the bet wins, subtract 1 unit to a minimum of 1 unit (so there will never be a 0 or negative bet)
-If the bet loses, add 1 unit with no maximum
Here's the results:
Trials: 1,000,000,000
Wins: 500,001,707 (50.0001707%)
Losses: 499,998,293 (49.9998293%)
Total Units Bet: 3,431,135,174,990
Average Bet: 3431 Units (yes, really)
Win/Loss: 496,499,726 unit win
Player Edge: 0.014%
A couple of notes:
-The nearly 500 million unit win seems big but when compared it to the 3.4 TRILLION units bet it's not much.
-The average bet is incredibly high. I'm sure MathExtremist can explain why; I can't.
-I'm guessing the edge is well within the standard deviation since I ran it a few more times and it once had a negative edge of 0.2%.
-No betting system will change the house edge on a game of independent trials. This game has an edge of 0% regardless of how you bet.
EDIT: Here's the code.. It's fairly simple but I wouldn't be shocked if I made a mistake somewhere.
-1 million players
-Each player plays 1,000 rounds regardless of the outcome
-Each player begins at a 1 unit bet
-There is a fairly generous max bet of 1,000 units
...and here's the outcome:
Wins: 500001145 (50000114.5%)
Losses: 499998855 (49999885.5%)
Total Bet: 17322150994
Average Bet: 17.32
Win/Loss: -37568
Edge: 0.0002168%
Code Here
Quote: PopCan
Average Bet: 3431 Units (yes, really)
Win/Loss: 496,499,726 unit win
Player Edge: 0.014%
A couple of notes:
-The nearly 500 million unit win seems big but when compared it to the 3.4 TRILLION units bet it's not much.
-The average bet is incredibly high. I'm sure MathExtremist can explain why; I can't.
-I'm guessing the edge is well within the standard deviation since I ran it a few more times and it once had a negative edge of 0.2%.
-No betting system will change the house edge on a game of independent trials. This game has an edge of 0% regardless of how you bet.
EDIT: Here's the code.. It's fairly simple but I wouldn't be shocked if I made a mistake somewhere.
Thanks, Pop. I'd say $496,499,726 is a WIN. Can you tell what kinda starting bankroll you would need? I think you'd be playing with the houses money most of the time if you win $500 million.
Take note of the more realistic sim I followed that up with. Again, the house edge didn't change, just the average bet was reduced causing it to deviate less from the edge in fewer trials.
Quote: PopCanPlease don't take that sim as an endorsement of the betting system. A betting system cannot change the house edge. As that system is a negative progression it'll have frequent small wins with occasional large losses. The house edge for a coin flip with that game is still 0% and the house edge on a single-zero roulette table with that system is still 2.7%.
Take note of the more realistic sim I followed that up with. Again, the house edge didn't change, just the average bet was reduced causing it to deviate less from the edge in fewer trials.
I understand, Pop. I was just wondering what kind of starting bankroll you would need, to handle the large losses, and be in the clear.
This betting method by the French math guy is flawed for any win probability other than 50%.Quote: PopCanPlease don't take that sim as an endorsement of the betting system.
It has been well documented.
Here is one
Stewart N. Ethier: The Doctrine of Chances. Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling. 2010
page 315
"The d’Alembert system is named for Jean le Rond d’Alembert [1717–1783],
a French mathematician.
In 1744 d’Alembert published Trait´e de l’´equilibre et
du mouvement des fluides, containing his “Theory of Equilibrium.”
It seems likely that he was therefore credited with this betting system, which relies
on the “Theory of Equilibrium” in probability, the belief (erroneous unless
p = 1/2) that wins and losses must eventually equalize."
d’Alembert was a genius in many fields.
But this was his biggest blunder.
The further one gets away from the 50% win prob, the worse this betting system performs.
Flat betting, IMO and simulation results, runs circles around this betting method for any length of play.
Even flat betting and a small positive progression, betting more after a win, has a higher win rate and a lower lose rate than the D'Alembert.
But, you will have to prove that on your own.
That will carry more weight than another's proof.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest "
Sure it can be +/- 300.Quote: JyBrd0403Someone had given a coin tossing simulation for 1 million trials on a different thread. It showed that you would be between + and - 300 on wins and losses, after a million trials.
This can be solved with a Binomial Standard Deviation formula to show the possible range of results.
parameters:
N = 1,000,000
P = 0.5
Q = 1-P = 0.5
SD formula = square root (N*P*Q)
ev = N*P
ev = 500,000
sd = you have to do the math
500,000 +/- 500 would be 1SD
500,000 +/- 1000 would be 2SD
500,000 +/- 1500 would be 3SD
agree?
disagree?
Now one needs to understand the central limit theorem and standard deviation.
This is now homework.
Quote: guido111It seems likely that he was therefore credited with this betting system, which relies
on the “Theory of Equilibrium” in probability, the belief (erroneous unless
p = 1/2) that wins and losses must eventually equalize."
d’Alembert was a genius in many fields.
But this was his biggest blunder.
Why would this be considered a blunder? It works for a 50/50 game of chance. See, what intrigues me about the D'alembert is that on a 50/50 game of chance it wins and wins big. I don't know any other betting system that wins, even if you play it on a 50/50 game of chance. It's the only betting system I know of that works on a 50/50 game.
I am just curious, what kind of starting bankroll you would need for the D'alembert on a fair 50/50 game of chance.
Quote: buzzpaffIf betting $100 as your starting point, you will need $ 167,543.23 approximately
Thanks buzzpuff. So, if $1 is your starting point, that's $1,675.43. Sounds pretty affordable. Spending $1,675.43 to make $450,000 sounds pretty good.
Quote: buzzpaffIf betting $100 as your starting point, you will need $ 167,543.23 approximately
"need" it for what?
PopCan gave links to the code he used. It only takes a bit of adding to it for what you need.Quote: JyBrd0403Anyone have a program that can show what kind of starting bankroll you would need for the D'alembert on a 50/50 game of chance?
Excel VBA help is everywhere.
Or this website.
bettingsimulation.com
I have this on my computer somewhere, I use other sim programs, and changed the code to do all sorts of sims.
You should be able to do the same. It is just Javascript.
That way you can set your initial bankroll and play until busted and see the high banks and number of bets until ruin and anything else your heart desires, data wise.
If you do not know how to code, one can find many to do it for you for a small fee.
Or maybe the guy at the website will add a coin toss selection for you if you ask.
Should be easy to do.
So if I start with 4 units, this gives me some leeway. So I would imagine that's why the average bet is so high in the 50/50 simulation. If you started at say 50 units, you can easily go down, and your last bet should be right at 50 units if the decisions came out 50/50.
By the way over 29 sessions, I've lost three times, and won 26. But my session ends if I win 10 or more units and ends if I lose my designated "largest bet" which is 10 units more than my starting bet, so 14 units.
It works for a 50/50 game of chance. See, what intrigues me about the D'alembert is that on a 50/50 game of chance it wins and wins big. I don't know any other betting system that wins, even if you play it on a 50/50 game of chance. It's the only betting system I know of that works on a 50/50 game.
Unquote from original poster.
All D'Alembert is is a very tame Martingale.
Quote: guido111This betting method by the French math guy is flawed for any win probability other than 50%.
It has been well documented.
Here is one
Stewart N. Ethier: The Doctrine of Chances. Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling. 2010
page 315
"The d’Alembert system is named for Jean le Rond d’Alembert [1717–1783],
a French mathematician.
In 1744 d’Alembert published Trait´e de l’´equilibre et
du mouvement des fluides, containing his “Theory of Equilibrium.”
It seems likely that he was therefore credited with this betting system, which relies
on the “Theory of Equilibrium” in probability, the belief (erroneous unless
p = 1/2) that wins and losses must eventually equalize."
d’Alembert was a genius in many fields.
But this was his biggest blunder.
Ethier's book is brilliant. But I expect D'Alembert got "credit" for the system because he argued for numbers coming due. The text is here:
http://www.cs.xu.edu/math/Sources/Dalembert/croix_ou_pile.pdf .
It's a quick read and really rather fascinating, although incorect.
- (pdfpages 35-56).
Wenzler advises not to place more than 40 units (totall loss= 820) (pdfpage 87).
FYI:
Quote: GandlerSo if a game is truly 5050 and 0% house edge, then in theory would a progressive betting system not always be guaranteed to pay off either with a win or a guaranteed breaking even. On here everyone says the house edge always comes true in the long run regardless of betting patterns, so of the HE is 0 then the worst case scenario is breaking even with a chance of a win? My statement I am sure is wrong but that seems like how it should be?
Any chance of a win is balanced by the chance of a loss if the EV is 0.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAny chance of a win is balanced by the chance of a loss if the EV is 0.
ok that makes sense. Thanks.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAny chance of a win is balanced by the chance of a loss if the EV is 0.
But doesn't he with the deepest pockets win "in the Long Run" ?
Quote: scepticusBut doesn't he with the deepest pockets win "in the Long Run" ?
Well, he with the deepest pockets has more of a chance of winning.
Say you have $100 and I have $200. We flip fair coins for $1 per flip until one of us is broke.
There is a 2/3 chance that you will go broke before I do, and a 1/3 chance that I will go broke before you.
The EV is still 0 -- I am risking $200 to win $100, so of course I have a 2/3 chance of winning.
You are risking $100 to win $200 so you have a 1/3 chance of winning.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWell, he with the deepest pockets has more of a chance of winning.
Say you have $100 and I have $200. We flip fair coins for $1 per flip until one of us is broke.
There is a 2/3 chance that you will go broke before I do, and a 1/3 chance that I will go broke before you.
The EV is still 0 -- I am risking $200 to win $100, so of course I have a 2/3 chance of winning.
You are risking $100 to win $200 so you have a 1/3 chance of winning.
True, but doesn't this pose the questions
"Why do we gamble when we know "the odds are stacked against us "? and,
" Does the Law of Large Numbers really apply to gambling when we only have a limited life-span "?
Is it that we challenge the concept that we MUST eventually lose? Is claims of certainty in forecasting the result of an uncertain outcome only theoretical ?
Excluding Advantage Players Some people think they got IT, what ever IT may be, somehow they are more clever/lucky then the casino, or theythink they know when to quit or how much to bet then everyone else. Some people know they will lose but have fun trying to win.Quote: scepticusTrue, but doesn't this pose the questions
"Why do we gamble when we know "the odds are stacked against us "? and,
" Does the Law of Large Numbers really apply to gambling when we only have a limited life-span "?
Is it that we challenge the concept that we MUST eventually lose? Is claims of certainty in forecasting the result of an uncertain outcome only theoretical ?
Quote: AxelWolfExcluding Advantage Players Some people think they got IT, what ever IT may be, somehow they are more clever/lucky then the casino, or theythink they know when to quit or how much to bet then everyone else. Some people know they will lose but have fun trying to win.[/q
]Do Advantage Players have an advantage without the use of computers. which are banned ?
Quote: scepticusTrue, but doesn't this pose the questions
"Why do we gamble when we know "the odds are stacked against us "? and,
All of us don't
Quote:" Does the Law of Large Numbers really apply to gambling when we only have a limited life-span "?
Yes, it really does. Do you even know what the law of large numbers is?
Quote:Is it that we challenge the concept that we MUST eventually lose? Is claims of certainty in forecasting the result of an uncertain outcome only theoretical ?
There is no difference between theoretical and practical. This "distinction" is usually made by people who don't understand either.
Quote: scepticusDo Advantage Players have an advantage without the use of computers. which are banned ?
Why would you need a computer to have an advantage?
It's not complicated. You find an edge, and you bet money with the edge. That gives you an advantage. No computer required.
Now, finding the edge may be the hard part. But you can use computers all you want for that. You just can't use them while you are playing the game.
However, here are the permanences of the Touchbet-Roulette (TB AS2) at “Casino Wiesbaden“. Suppose, you had decided to bet on red....
---
---
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 30.08.2012
Rot 239 - Schwarz 312
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 31.08.2012
Rot 272 - Schwarz 286
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 01.09.2012
Rot 258 - Schwarz 273
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 02.09.2012
Rot 263 - Schwarz 300
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 03.09.2012
Rot 268 - Schwarz 287
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 04.09.2012
Rot 275 - Schwarz 280
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 05.09.2012
Rot 270 - Schwarz 281
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 06.09.2012
Rot 265 - Schwarz 290
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 07.09.2012
Rot 261 - Schwarz 296
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 08.09.2012
Rot 269 - Schwarz 289
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 09.09.2012
Rot 275 - Schwarz 282
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 10.09.2012
Rot 266 - Schwarz 293
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 11.09.2012
Rot 254 - Schwarz 301
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 12.09.2012
Rot 260 - Schwarz 291
Permanenzen vom TB AS2 vom 13.09.2012
Rot 282 - Schwarz 273
Quote: AxelWolfExcluding Advantage Players Some people think they got IT, what ever IT may be, somehow they are more clever/lucky then the casino, or theythink they know when to quit or how much to bet then everyone else.
IT, AxelWolf?
IT is the empowerment that comes with the utilization of one's Player's Advantages:
Betting when it's deemed advantageous to do so: read: ability to decipher a Baccarat shoe's current trends
Betting where it's deemed advantageous to do so: read: preferred bet selection process
Betting the appropriate amount: read: tailored MM to one's strike rates/variances
Terminating each session when it's deemed most advantageous.
Now, what does all of that do to erase the HE? Nothing. The math is the math. I'll be paid out at less than true odds on every winning bet.
BUUUTTT, it remains my contention that my Player's Advantages, considered in their totality, suffice to overcome that math/HE.
How wrong can I be? I've been going pretty much every Thurs nite/Fri eve for years, and that's a 6 hr round trip, with rental car/gas/tolls expense, all done after working a full-time job on a regular basis. Do I sound like the kind of person that would do all of that just to LOSE??? Use your head, man....
Quote: gr8playerDo I sound like the kind of person that would do all of that just to LOSE???
Yup....
You sound like the type of person that just loves to talk and talk and talk about the same nothing(tailored strike rates/Variances. GIVE ME A BREAK) You like to hear yourself talk and see how creative you can be with the same old garbage. You use fancy words to make things sound as if what you are saying has some kind of merit. NO ONE, with any merit believes you can beat Bac. TBH, most people think you are a joke, you are probably the only one who dose not see it. I see no difference between you Varmenti,TournamentKing,Rob singer...... actually NO, I think they have more credibility, at least they are willing to show there faces and attempt to prove their claims.Quote: gr8playerIT, AxelWolf?
IT is the empowerment that comes with the utilization of one's Player's Advantages:
Betting when it's deemed advantageous to do so: read: ability to decipher a Baccarat shoe's current trends
Betting where it's deemed advantageous to do so: read: preferred bet selection process
Betting the appropriate amount: read: tailored MM to one's strike rates/variances
Terminating each session when it's deemed most advantageous.
Now, what does all of that do to erase the HE? Nothing. The math is the math. I'll be paid out at less than true odds on every winning bet.
BUUUTTT, it remains my contention that my Player's Advantages, considered in their totality, suffice to overcome that math/HE.
How wrong can I be? I've been going pretty much every Thurs nite/Fri eve for years, and that's a 6 hr round trip, with rental car/gas/tolls expense, all done after working a full-time job on a regular basis. Do I sound like the kind of person that would do all of that just to LOSE??? Use your head, man....
I think... you don't care if you beat Bac or not, you only care if people believe you do. You desperately want just one person to believe you. Narcissistic comes to mind.
You have been playing for years, yet no one has ever seen you. You have been offered different scenarios/opportunity's that would help prove what you are saying.(even one that would not revile you or your system) The only thing you have to hide from is the fact that you probably don't play at all, or play so small it would be laughable(I think you occasionally play small win and lose small) . If anything you say is true, then the fact that you lost 250k should be the only thing people should be concerned with.
Quote: Buzzard" all done after working a full-time job on a regular basis. " Because he wants to contribute to society and becomes Walmart's employee of the year some day !
I could only wish....but those finicky shopping carts are just so darn difficult to align and return inside the store.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYup....
Really, AxiomOfChoice? To me, that brings your ability to judge one's character into question.
Quote: IbeatyouracesInfinity%
Et tu, Ibeatyouraces? And from a fellow "advantagist"....
Quote: AxelWolfYou sound like the type of person that just loves to talk and talk and talk about the same nothing(tailored strike rates/Variances. GIVE ME A BREAK) You like to hear yourself talk and see how creative you can be with the same old garbage. You use fancy words to make things sound as if what you are saying has some kind of merit. NO ONE, with any merit believes you can beat Bac. TBH, most people think you are a joke, you are probably the only one who dose not see it. I see no difference between you Varmenti,TournamentKing,Rob singer...... actually NO, I think they have more credibility, at least they are willing to show there faces and attempt to prove their claims.
I think... you don't care if you beat Bac or not, you only care if people believe you do. You desperately want just one person to believe you. Narcissistic comes to mind.
You have been playing for years, yet no one has ever seen you. You have been offered different scenarios/opportunity's that would help prove what you are saying.(even one that would not revile you or your system) The only thing you have to hide from is the fact that you probably don't play at all, or play so small it would be laughable(I think you occasionally play small win and lose small) . If anything you say is true, then the fact that you lost 250k should be the only thing people should be concerned with.
Ahhh, I've just no time for this dance, AxelWolf. Believe as you will, my friend. It's your dime....
Quote: gr8playerReally, AxiomOfChoice? To me, that brings your ability to judge one's character into question.
No, it shows that I can do basic math.
You claim to be doing something which is mathematically impossible. I am no idiot, so I know that you are either lying or mistaken. I don't particularly care which...
Lost for more useless words I see. It has a ring of truth and we both know it. Hopefully no one will ever buy into your baloney or they will end up losing their last dime.... You have no time for the truth, and that's the real truth. Your time is better wasted on coming up with different ways to say the same thing and to confuse and convince novice gamblers of the impossible.Quote: gr8playerAhhh, I've just no time for this dance, AxelWolf. Believe as you will, my friend. It's your dime....
Oh No You Didn'tQuote: IbeatyouracesYou have no advantage. Therefore we are not "fellows" in that sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCv_OEtTn2M
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAll of us don't
Yes, it really does. Do you even know what the law of large numbers is?
There is no difference between theoretical and practical. This "distinction" is usually made by people who don't understand either.
The purpose of my post was to ask how anyone can prove the result of an uncertain future event with certainty. Probability Theory is only a tool to be used and cannot prove or disprove anything on it's own .It has first to be asked a question and that question is based on an assumption.It is all too often taken for granted ,for example, that we must lose "in the Long Run" while playing roulette but no one tells when that Long Run will come.I have read all sorts of " abouts".About 5,000 bets-About 10,000 bets -About 100, 000 bets and so on - which tells me that no one knows.It is simply based on the fact that the casino doesn't pay fair odds and so we can never win when there is a negative expectation. But that is a Theory which can only be tested in Practice and will prove to be false when even one person - a Black Swan -is an overall winner. But who would divulge a truly profitable system?
There are many Theories that have proven to be wrong in Practice so you are indulging in semantics when you say there is no distinction between them. As Edison put it " I have not failed.I have just found a thousand things that do not work ". Incidentally, why all the bile in your posts ?
Good to hear that you have found an advantage but didn't you use a computer to work out a way to beat the casino's Edge ?
You may be interested in the following post from another site.
About 5 years ago, on the forum, ( Gambling.co.uk ) a guy called "Diceman" posted the following ;
" For that stat I inputted 100,000 trials. Suppose you bet £1 on every spin, always on one number (I think we'd get the same result for any strategy or combination but it'd be harder to work out), then you need to win over 2777 times (100000/36) to break even or make a profit. Probability of success is 0.027027027... (1/37), then press "calculate" and the cumulative probability of winning between 0 and 2777 times is 92.8%, so the probability of winning more times than that is 7.2%.
If you spin a million times you have a 1 in 540541 chance of breaking even. That's not impossible by any means which is why nobody ever gets to play the statistical "long term". But it's still a very irrational thing to do. "
If his calculations are right then clearly it is not true that we MUST lose when playing roulette. Incidentally, what game do you play ?
